tv INSA Intelligence Conference Representative Schiff and Senator Warner CSPAN September 8, 2017 4:18pm-5:10pm EDT
[applause] >> welcome back for day two of the summit. in keeping with yesterday's session, with the hectic schedules are in place, they signify that the members of the summit are notable. senator warner and representative schiff both juggled their schedules this morning to make this happen. unfortunately their schedules didn't match up. so we're going to be speaking with each of them see consequentialy. also this afternoon, director of national intelligence coates is required at a white house meeting. and he won't be available. but fortunately principal deputy director of national intelligence will speak to us instead and it will be one of sue's first public appearances in her new role. let me reiterate the importance of your questions, in particular early submission of he questions using the email
firstname.lastname@example.org for the first preliminary. and due to the short period ofs of time for each -- periods of time for each of the guests, get the questions in early and nice concise ones will be much appreciated. also the opportunities to interact with the exhibiters and also our appreciation for the sponsor of this event. at this point i'd like to introduce ms. suzanne kelly, who is the c.e.o. and publisher of the sigh ofer brief, who will moderate the discussions. ms. kelly. ms. kelly: thank you vutch. appreciate being here. welcome to everyone this morning. i hope you're geared up for a great conversation. congressman, thank you. mr. schiff: i'm delighted to be in a situation where the house gets to go first. i want to compliment insa for recognizing the proper order of things this morning. ms. kelly: yes. well, i wonder what went on behind the scenes. we'll have to get to the bottom of that. it's fantastic to have you
here. with so much going on in the , so much ce community of it showing up in sound bites on television, on a daily basis, so much politics back and forth, when you take a deep breath, and you sit back aunled look at all the things we're dealing with, security clearance reform, an investigation into russia, the 702 come up for renewal later this year, how do you prioritize what you think is the most important? mr. schiff: it is an enormous challenge this year in particular. because in addition to all our day job responsibilities of oversight, we've also had the russia investigation layered on top. the not as if the other issues went away or went on hayities. when i think back, and i think all of us have felt a kind of time distorting effect of this year, where things that happened just yesterday seem like it must have been a week or a month ago. but nonetheless, you know, i
think we've done a very good job of not only juggling these competing responsibilities, but also compartmentalizing our differences. and to give you a very graphic example. the chairman and i ourble have our differences other -- obviously have our differents over the russia investigation but we decided we were going to compartmentalize the oversight work the committee does and not let me differences we had on russia interfere with what we had to do in terms of our oversight, with our authorization responsibilities, and so we produced, after our numerous hearings and review of documents and interviews and what not, a very bipartisan intelligence authorization act that allocates the funding levels and provides the protections that we need in terms of people's privacy. and passed it overwhelmingly, both in committee and on the house floor. that doesn't get the same attention as some of the twists and turns in the russia investigation.
but obviously is quite central to our responsibility. 702 will be another challenge. we've got a pretty good track record, though, when you look at how we accomplished the reform of the metadata program, how we passed information sharing legislation, the cyberinformation sharing legislation. so we have a history to build on. and i'm confident we'll get through the debate. hit thatful way. ms. kelly: are you saying it works better than it appears to on tv every day? mr. schiff: it would have to by efinition. i think a lot of the work that needs to get done does get done, doesn't get the same attention. of vital bviously importance. i view our committee as having perhaps the most difficult
oversight job in the congress. because when you serve one of the other committees and you're doing oversight, if you're on the transportation committee and the agency come in and they're talking about high speed rail and what a great project it is and how well it's going and how it's on budget and on time and all the rest of that, there are any number of outside stakeholders who can hold those witnesses accountable. and can provide information to the committee and say, that's not true and this isn't right and you need to ask these questions. in our arena, where most of our hearings are in closed session, we don't have the outside stakeholders to the same degree. able to give us input, insight, help us to ask the right questions. or know when we're not getting a complete answer. so that's a very challenging oversight responsibility. but i think we're doing a pretty good job. ms. kelly: that sounds like a very serious -- maybe not flaw, but default in the system that you have to overcome somehow.
because you do have such incredible responsibilities with oversight of these programs. that are constantly being judged by the american people when they hear snippets about what the program entail or what it doesn't. it's very difficult to know what to believe and to get the right information out there. how do you personally handle that when you don't have those outside people who you can go to, to kind of bring the level of expertise? mr. schiff: one of the most important decisions we make is when we hire our staff. we bring people in often who have experience in the agencies, who do know a lot of the right questions to ask and have the background, expertise, to help us with our oversight. we also depend to a great deal, great extent, on the professionalism of the people working within the i.c. both on the government side and on the contractor side, to be candid with us. not just in the answer to our questions, but also to bring us problems when they occur. and i think that that has by and large happened. so we benefit from the
professional work force that we deal with. at the same time human nature is human nature. people don't necessarily like to volunteer their faults or problems. and people become vested in the way they've approached issues or programs and so we need to continue to challenge the agencies to do better, and continue to demand accountability in terms of what we're paying for certain programs, whether something that we've been doing the same way for a long time continues to be justified. whether we're getting the kind of results, whether we're setting the kind of metrics. so we have to be demanding. but i think that we benefit from a very capable staff and the professionalism within the i.c. ms. kelly: you feel like you're getting the cooperation you theed from the people you are overseeing? -- need from the people you are overseeing? mr. schiff: yes. there are very few times where i felt like we were getting misinformation.
there are certainly times where i have disagreed with a briefer or their conclusion or their opinion or questioned the underlying facts that are being presented. but it's not a situation where i think people are deliberately rying to mislead us. there are times i think when we have a fresh perspective, not having become weded to a certain approach. that can be very helpful and constructive. and i'm sure from the withins's point of view -- from the witness' point of view, they may view it differently and think that we don't have anywhere near the experience and time on task that they do, which is certainly correct. but it seems to work at the end of the day. and obviously in this kind of an era, where we're dealing with new challenges in the form of terrorism, also now information wars, with very capable adversaries and a
burgeoning cyberfield, we all need to work together to make sure that we have the capabilities we need to defend the country. ms. kelly: what do you think the biggest challenges are right now? you wake up and read the same newspapers and websites and everything else that the rest of us do. we see what's happening with north korea, we're trying to prepare and make sure things are in place for another election. where you're dealing with federal level and state levels and possible attempts to try to manipulate messaging around those elections. how do you kind of prioritize these things? mr. schiff: it's very difficult. because our tendency, i think like most institutionses, is to focus on the most immediate problem. which is not necessarily the biggest problem or the most long-term problem. or the problem that requires you to be able to allocate resources in a way that builds over time. i'm astounded just with the crush of things going on, for example, that so little attention is being paid to the
fact that raqqa is going to fall soon. soon we hope. but we have the successful retaking of mosul. raqqa is going to fall. the last major urban holdings of the so-called caliphate are about to disappear. which is an important success on the battlefield. but it's gotten almost no attention. just because of everything else going on. that doesn't mean by any means the war against isis is over or even nearing conclusion. ms. kelly: or no longer a threat. we always worry about how is it going to impact us here at home? right. we need to see that thread drawn, that connection made. do you think that's happening enough in the fuzz? -- in the news? mr. schiff: on certain things, sure. on korea, for example, people have a very vivid sense of the threat, when they look at, ok, these missiles now can reach anywhere in the united states and maybe they can carry a nuclear pay load and if they can't today, maybe they can
tomorrow. in terms of the isis threat, ok. great news. the physical cat fate is disappearing but what about the -- physical caliphate is disappearing but what about the virtual caliphate which in many respects is much more dangerous to americans, in the sense of people being radicalized online and carrying out attacks in the name of isis. ms. kelly: here in this country. mr. schiff: exactly. but i do think that in terms of at least of the two threats that is are most in the news these days, the threat from north korea and the threat from russia. people are quite vividly aware of the nature and dimension of those threats. how we're going to confront them, though, we still have a lot of work to do. ms. kelly: let me ask you too and then i'm going to get to some of the questions from audience members as well in just a moment. we already have some of them coming in here. let's talk really quickly about 702. because i think that's also another one that really has an incredible impact on the united states' ability to collect
information. and protect privacy of its citizens. both are at stake with this. what happens the day after, if it is not re-authorized? mr. schiff: i don't think -- first of all, i don't think that's going to happen. that is a failure to re-authorize 702. i think the only question is, what form the re-authorization will take. i hope i'm not being overly optimistic about that. i think it would be irresponsible for us, and yes, we've done a lot of irresponsible thing in congress, so that doesn't recollude that. ms. kelly: can i get you to say that one more time? [laughter] mr. schiff: we've probably done more irresponsible things by omission than by commission. but in any case. i think we will re-authorize. it's just a question of what kind of reforms we make to. it and here it won't surprise people that the old adage of where you stand depends on where you sit has resonance in the sense that members of the judiciary committee, which have a very important oversight role, have one perspective.
members of the intel committee have a slightly different perspective. it's not that we don't appreciate the civil liberties and civil rights issues. we certainly do. or that the judiciary committee doesn't appreciate the intel benefit and significance of what the program does. but in the committee, of course, we live day to day with the understanding of how important that is to our national security. vivid o i think having a understanding of how the program works is important. and what the evidence has been in terms of, have there been problems with the execution she have there been any intentional abuses of it? and also with respect to proposed reforms, what's the real down stream consequence of that? does the criminal justice model of seeking a court approval, for example, to do a u.s. person search of the 702 database, is that really the right model? does that work here? what happens if the u.s. person
identity you're searching is a potential victim, not a perpetrator? or a place, not a person? or andreas? so having an intimate understanding of the program helps in terms of what we think is a viable reform. and what may not be. ms. kelly: an abuse of power is a big question, right, for people who don't understand exactly how the program works and they're hearing the headlines, abuse of power, that's where the congressional oversight comes in to play. are you confident with the way the system is running right now, with your ability to oversee when there are cases where someone is misusing access -- certain access they may or may not have? mr. schiff: i do feel pretty confident about our ability to oversee this. i hope that's not wishful thinking. but i don't think it is. and it's not just because of the work we're doing. or just because of the fact that the agencies do come in and self-report when they have problems. but also that we have the tremendous value added by the
fisa court. by the fact that the fisa court itself does i think a very vigorous review of these programs and where they find problems they often will suspend an effort until they get the results they want. or they'll change what a program can do until they get the results they want. we will have access to those opinions and the concerns raised by the fisa court. so i think the combination of what the courts do in their oversight, what we do in our oversight, what the agencies do in their self-reporting is pretty comprehensive. ms. kelly: and working. great. let me keep good on my promise and get to some of these questions. a lot of what the audience is think being right now, oversight resources, 702 re-authorization, and the question about election security. let's get to one of those questions. do you believe the united states government is doing enough to prepare for another cyberattack against our elections? give than elections are principally a state responsibility, what roles
should the intelligence community play? interesting question. mr. schiff: i don't think we're doing enough. and coming from a state with such a powerful technology industry, when i meet with tech experts and talk about the machinery of the elections, they tell me, and i have every reason to believe that they are knowledgeable on this, that these systems are not impregnant nabble. they are vulnerable. and i felt for quite some time, well before this past election, that any state or any voting jurisdiction that doesn't maintain a paper trail is negligent in this day and age. so i think there's a lot more that we need to do. there's a lot more that we need to understand. i think the vendors of these voting machines need to be much more transparent with the government about their systems and their software. so that we can analyze vulnerabilities. the states have to be willing
to accept the government help that is being offered. and the government and the i.c. has to be more transparent with the states. the states still don't know if they were victims of russian hacking. we have not shared that information with the states. i think that's crazy. and i know my colleague has been very outspoken on this and properly so. i hope that we will have a hearing in our committee, an open hearing, where we can bring in some of the state elections piece to -- people to talk about the vulnerability that they feel in terms of their infrastructure and the need for us to be more forth coming with them. but we learned each and every day -- today there was a report semantech about the vulnerability of our power grid. the fact that outside hackers have been able to get into the operational parts of those systems, not just probe some of the outlying parts of those
systems. and we find that those systems are far more vulnerable than people may have expected. ms. kelly: and we've been talking about it for years but we haven't really done a lot to protect critical infrastructure. a lot of studies, meetings, talking. mr. schiff: the big area that fell out of the cyberinformation sharing bill was the effort to deal with critical infrastructure. that was one area there was simply too wide a gulf between the parties in terms of what's federal government's role in protecting critical infrastructure. so it is largely set by private industry. now, there are obviously a lot of incentives for private industry to improve their security. but whether those incentives are sufficient or not is an open question. i will say that the fact that there's still vulnerabilities doesn't mean nothing is being done. what it means in some cases is that this is a very asimilar et rick feel where the advantages are all on the offensive.
because those on offense only need to find one open door. and those on defense need to bar every window and lock every door. that's inherently challenging and it's a particularly inviting field for adversaries because there's always going to be plausible deniability. we've gotten very good atry bution -- at art bution. but our adversaries know we're never going to make public the full capability we have to attribute. and so they'll always have some level of deniability. ms. kelly: that's a good point. i'd love to talk about so many issues. we have some great questions here on russian influence. i know we're running out of time and you have another appointment you need to get to this morning. let me ask one more question following up on that answer about the cyber work force. thanks great question from the audience. what is congress doing to build the cyber work force? how can they pay i.t. what they can make, especially given the state where you're coming from, is a cyberreserve corps a real
possibility in the near future and might that bring any benefit? mr. schiff: first of all, we can't compete financially with silicon valley. some of the bright, capable people start in the silicon valley with salaries higher than yours or mine. certainly higher than mine. a lot of people in the audience. ms. kelly: probably mine too. mr. schiff: i'm sure that's true. so we're benefited by the fact that a lot of people choose to work in the i.c. because they feel a sense of patriotism and calling. and it draws them to that. and a lot of very patriotic people feel the same call to work within the private sector that are serving the i.c. so so that's tremendously beneficial. but we do need to continually work to recruit people. we need to continue working on diversifying the i.c. work force. we also i think do need to explore creative ways to bring people in from industry for a
period of years, then have them go back in the industry. ms. kelly: i've herd that -- heard that a lot. that that there would be great benefit from that. mr. schiff: there are brilliant people going into next generation energy technologies. they bring the knowledge they have from the private sector. they add value to the government. they go back to the private sector. there are obviously some difficulties and added complications in an i.c. environment. but nothing that can't be overcome. and i think we do need to look to these models as well as some of the interesting partnerships that already exist in terms of venture capital with the ilicon valley. ms. kelly: absolutely. i know we need a seamless congressional transition. i want to thank you very much for coming here. fantastic lot more questions here which i think we should have all forwarded to your office. your qualified staffers will be happy to answer, because these
are great questions. if we could also invite senator warner. i think he's here or was supposed to be here about now. we have a few more minutes. he's late. we get to talk. ok. even better. i do think we should talk a little bit about the russia question. -- t me pull up mr. schiff: wait, i think i see senator warner. ms. kelly: i believed you. what is the scope and scale of russian influence operations in the united states? this is a small little question that we can, you know, beside time with. mr. schiff: of course that's really what we're aiming to find out. e're looking at things the russianses have used elsewhere. some of which we know with great certainty they employed here during the election and others where we still need to find out where these tactics that the russians used. do i want to make one point. because i know we have limited time. but getting to it, an earlier question of yours that's
implicated here. what do we do about all of this? ms. kelly: yeah. mr. schiff: there is no software patch for what happened last year. there's no cyberdefense capable enough. if the russians want to get into the d.n.c. in 2020, they'll get in. if they want to get into the r.n.c., they'll get in. really the best protection that we can have is somehow forging the consensus we didn't have last year. that no matter who it may help or who it may hurt, if any foreign power intervenes in our affairs, let alone our elections, they will be repudiated. and anyone who tries to take advantage of it will be repudiated. more than anything else i think that's what we need to defend ourselves. because what has been unleashed is not going to be put back in the bottom. and it's not going to be just an issue with russia. it will be an issue with any country that wants to influence our affairs. and moreover, it will be an issue for lots of other countries in their own relationship with each other. ms. kelly: you know what
worries me and i wonder if it worries you. when you look at influence operations and you look at how we're getting news today and you look at fake news and what's fake and what's not, you look, we're getting it through social media channels. is there more of a responsibility that needs to be placed on the consumer of the news to question things that don't quite seem like they fit a pattern that let's say they saw a story yesterday when things are coming out of left field, should we all be talking about putting more responsibility on the part of the person receiving news to say, wait a second, i'm going throw up a b.s. flag? mr. schiff: absolutely. and this i think is a challenge for americans. it's a challenge for people around the world. i've often found that bed with -- found it bewildering that in russia, for example, where during soviet times people were so disbelieving of what they read in -- and they recognized that it was merely the party line. ms. kelly: propaganda. mr. schiff: people now are so
believing of the russian media. it's extraordinary. i wonder what happened to the russian skepticism of what their government has to say? but i think we all need to bring a certain inherent skepticism. i think we should also take a very serious look at what facebook has just revealed publicly in terms of its own analysis. and one thing in particular, the russians, and this is completely consistent with what the intelligence community found in its unclassified assessment, wanted among other things to sow discord in the united states. and look at what they were doing. look at the issues they were choosing to grow the divisions in america. we ought to recognize that for what it is. which is this is a vulnerability. that they see we have. these terrible divisions within our country. and if they feel that's a vulnerability, we need to recognize it as a vulnerability and we need to do something about it. this is why i think it's so important from the very top on
down that we make an effort to bridge these divisions, not aggravate them any further. i do see my senate colleague. ms. kelly: i think he's here. we'd like to thank you. i don't want to you rush off because i think we'd like to get a quick photograph. if we could have everyone in the audience come -- no, i'm kidding. [laughter] congressman schiff, thank you. very much. senator warner, welcome. thank you for being here. we need to get a quick photo. mr. warner: so bare with us while we get a quick picture ere and do a transition. and a big thank you. ms. kelly: when you pass each other in the halls. what do you say to each other? mr. schiff: we were talking about how insa did the proper order of things by having the house go before the senate.
mr. warner: you're always the warmest. ms. kelly: i'm doing step out of this. invite you to have a seat right over here. thank you very much, congressman schiff. mr. schiff: thank you for having me. ms. kelly: well incumbent hard to follow that. mr. warner: wild days. in full disclosure. i s doing an interview and jumped out of the car and grabbed a jacket and unfortunately i grabbed my aide's jacket who is about six inches shorter than me. [applause] i'm not sure that's reflective of being a senator or vice chair of the intel department. but -- eith that are or my august -- i put on an awful lot more weight than i thought. ms. kelly: you're going to get yourself in trouble. welcome and thank you for taking you areth time. i know you're always on a very tight schedule.
we appreciate you being here. we have a very well informed audience on all of the issues that you're tackling on a day to day basis. we ticked through a number of sort of high priority things. i'd like to give you the same opportunity to do that as well. i know there are a number of issues, 702 being one of them, we talked about this morning. security clearance reform being another. how about is this cyberthreat? walk me through when you wake up and you turn on the news or you read the paper, you know, that moment of -- oh, wow, what next? mr. warner: let me step back and, first of all, even before couple of general comments. one, this opportunity to be the vice chair of the intel committee is probably the greatest opportunity i've had in the senate. it still remains as one of the committees that actually still functions on a bipartisan way, that gets bills out. that works through issues in ways that i think are appropriate. i've been generally very pleased with how our committee, for example, has taken on the
whole russia investigation. and i feel as a virginia guy, it's kind of, i've got an extra burden and responsibility since so many of our intelligence professionals either live in or retire to virginia. so -- ms. kelly: they know where you live. mr. warner: i feel like i'm the local guy. i feel like the really important, it's one of the reasons i was so frustrated in -- both during the transition and in the early days of the administration. i've got a lot of differences with the president. but where the president didn't seem to have that kind of respect for the intelligence community. i think that's been troubling. i think it's challenged morale. ms. kelly: has it gotten better? mr. warner: i think he's growing to understand that you cannot be the president of the united states without having a strong relationship with your intelligence community. and i think that's gotten better. but for a community that doesn't get the thanks and the appreciation on a regular basis that it deserves, it's got to have respect.
if we're going to continue to attract world class talent. and if the community's going to be able to continue to do its most important responsibility which is to speak truth to power and not be politicized. ms. kelly: we have mike pompeo in place now who seems to be working well with the president. we have dan coates. sue gordon as his deputy. do you feel confident that things are working more now? are we getting a little bit more away from the politics, focused on the substance and actually the issues that are going to impact all of us regardless of political party? mr. warner: yes, i think there is progress. if you think about robert ordello and sue gordon and trish and obviously rogers, a lot of the community has stayed in place. mike pompeo has got a good background. come to the c.i.a. dan coates served with me for years. obviously a great appreciation of the i.c. so i think we have made progress there. i think one of the -- some of the areas that may not kind of
rise to the level of the news on a regular basis, there are things that are a little bit nitty gritty that i'm still very interested in. for example, one of the things jim clapper and i spent a long time with in his last year was can we make sure that the oversight program or the eye sight program, for example, the notion of a uniform i.t. backbone across the whole i.c., kind of nerdy, but when you're talking about how we communicate and how we can make sure that there's better ability to move past philo, something very, very important. the question of clearances. you know, this has been a problem for ages. our intel bill that we passed out of the senate committee, we start a reform process there. long overdue. the process, particularly if we're going to continue to attract world class talent, and
if we're going to think about not only bringing in people as they kind of come out of school but as we think about midcareer transitions, into the agency and into the intel community, you can't have this 12, 18-month, 24-month security clearance process. so we've tried to say more uniformity across all of the agencies. you shouldn't have to duplicate that. i think the main -- the cleaners, the main systemic change we're trying to push is, rather than having an arbitrary every five-year re-review, this ought to be more risk-based, it ought to be more ongoing. there are clearly models on the private sector around security that we can i think implement on the i.c. side. one other area i want to kind of get out before we get to 702 and russia and all the other things, an area that i kind of dived into for some time over the last couple of years, as a
former guy from tech, was the whole question of our overhead architecture. and i'm a big believer that we need to move from the world where we built on a 10-year cycle the world's most exquisite overhead architecture and we had a procurement process that said we're going to take a year or two to get your requirements and five to 10-year period before we move from design to launch. that just doesn't make sense in a world where in overhead, you know, things are changing on a two-year basis. and we're building sometimes i think multibillion-dollar platforms in the sky that are exquisite but i felt like in a way that -- for a lightning time nobody in the i.c. community had ever seen a james bond movie. because back to the early days of the james bond movies, the bad guys always use laser beams to blow up satellites. well now we're seeing that. so i think we're seeing -- and
i compliment the n.r.o. and others about moving from that kind of old style architecture and procurement process to something much quicker, much more agile, much smaller, much more use of commercial. again, these are areas that don't always necessarily make the headlines. but where a lot of our capacity and needs to kind of continue to move the community forward. ms. kelly: i love. that i feel like we're getting into good substantive issues. all of this pulls together into what you need to do to provide good oversight in making sure that we're allocating resources we need to. let me ask questions from our audience. global coverage. with finite resources, the i.c. is focused on hard targets and terrorism. countries like guinea might not be important until there's a coup or a pandemic that effects u.s. interests. but it's such a point we need to understand dynamics and the affected region. does the i.c. have an adequate understanding solve called global coverage countries? - of so-called global coverage countries? mr. warner: i think there's a growing recognition that
problemses can pop up anywhere. i think if we think about it, you know, in the last 30 years we've been counterterrorism, we've been russia, we've been china, we've been north korea, we've been iran. but when we're thinking about environmental challenge, when we're thinking about pandemics, when we're thinking about the emergence of terrorism andrievlusionary forces that are external just to their specific country, you have to have a broader footprint. and that means we need greater collaboration with our allies. we cannot do it all alone. it means greater usage of open source documents. and it also pushes us letly into the fact that -- letly into the fact that -- completely into the fact that a group of dedicated activists in some small country can actually challenge our nation, particularly within the cyberdomain, because it's so asymmetry cal.
thinking through this broader coverage rather than simply check the boxes is an issue that both the community community and we from the oversight capacity need to think through. ms. kelly: do you have time to think about what's coming next when you're living in a day to day environment where you have 20 things popping up on the radar? really 10 of which need immediate attention. do you have time? the time that you need to plan for those things that are going to have a broader impact overall? mr. warner: well -- it's not like the congress is getting a lot done in other areas. [laughter] ms. kelly: with you say that again for me? mr. warner: no. listen, i think you have to carve out time. one of the things that richard and i on his chairmanship and my vice chairmanship is we try to think through, all right, let's not just -- i felt like the first three years i was on the committee, being on committee was a little like being in a kid's soccer game.
the meetings were whatevers was the hot spot that week. whatever the bad guys were doing that week and whatever specific location. ms. kelly: so you're reacting. mr. warner: yeah. and i think we need to be more proactive and forward-leaning. ms. kelly: has it changed? mr. warner: we're trying to move it in that direction. but as you mentioned, there's always something that requires immediate attention. we're going to get a classified brief on north korea today. that is absolutely critical. but we have to also be able to sort through what are these emerging threats? i've been, for example, i've been saying since the beginning of the russia investigation hat i have real concerns about the way americans and for that matter the world takes in news. i think that -- i think adam was -- i didn't hear all -- taking it this on ated end.
it a-- on at the edge. it appeared to me that the various social media sites we rely on for everything, our facebooks, googles and twitters, it was my wleef that the russians were using those siteses to intervene in our elections. and the first reaction from facebook of course was -- you're crazy. nothing's going on. well, we find yesterday there was something going on. i think all we saw yesterday in terms of their brief was the tip of the iceberg. i want them back in, i want to see twitter come back in. not to be necessarily critical, because you've seen, for example, in the case of -- ook, they denied any that they were being used in any way. yet by the time -- and didn't do anything. by the time of the french elections, facebook working with the frefpblg took down 50,000 -- french took down 50,000 accounts. here is an emerging threat and challenge that we've got to see from the i.c. side. but we also -- it breaks us
into the whole legislative side. for example, even in the the -- with er unlimited campaign contributions flowing in to our campaigns, an american can still figure out what content is being used on tv advertising. you can look at it, you can go look at the ad. you may not be able to find completely the source. but in social media, there's no such requirement. so we may need legislative solutions -- ms. kelly: there may be reforms. mr. warner: there may be a reform process here but i think the social media companies would not oppose because i think americans, particularly when it comes to elections, ought to be able to know if there is foreign sponsored content coming into their electoral process. that's an area that's a brand new field. does it just fall on the i.c. side? not necessarily. but as we think about how we've become more and more dependent
upon our devices, that becomes a method of influence almost bigger than tv and radio. ms. kelly: we talked briefably that before. i kind of approach it with a soccer mom mentality. i understand what people in political parties are saying and i understand they're gaining momentum based on what their messaging is and if they deliver the message their audience wants to hear, you win senate seats on catering to the people who support you. but is that necessarily the best thing for america? i think that's a great point that you brought up, about being a little more critical of where you're getting information. mr. warner: thanks brand new world. we're communicating and receiving information in a different way. the i.c. has to understand that. and we have to sort through it. ms. kelly: let's get to a few of these other fantastic issues. space do. we have the policies, the organization, the capabilities in place to optimize our utilization of the space domain, are we able to effectively deny our adversaries use of that space domain? that's a great question. mr. warner: i don't think we
our adversaries the use of space. what i worry about is do we have the resilience of ?lexibility can we move away from the model government site technical means to a more distributedsome system? because i would argue in many ays our enormous communications reliance on space, our enormous systems reliance, our enormous overhead pacity in terms of radar and electric row optical makes us in many ways more vulnerable. i go back to my james bond
analogy. we thought we were going to control and dominate space forever. now we're able to see nations, not just major nations but potentially even smaller nations, have the capacity to, if they can jam or interfere with those devices, that potentially even makes us more vulnerable. so how do we think just, again, kind of obsessed on the overhead piece, we think about how we need enormously greater coverage of north korea, but as we think about it, even if we can get the space coverage, do we have the ground capacity to review all the data that comes in? . it's a systemic approach. coip innovative companies have a hard time working through the federal procurement process they may have the technology but can't sell it. what degree have they incorporated these technologies?
mr. warner: we're making progress. i want to make the point again, while there's some great innovation going on in the silicon valley, in overhead, there's also a lot of great innovation going on in the washington area, particularly on the virginia side. so we need to look in both places. i would say o, this is both on the d.o.d. and i.c. side, we've got to move our procurement process away from being risk averse. it's always easier to go with a big brand name. we've got to move on a more innovative side. again, the chairman and i, and he's come around on this one, give richard a lot of credit. you can't have a two-year requirement cycle and then a five to 10 year procurement launch cycle when you've got, you know, my background, as many of you know, was in the cell phone business.
back in the mid 1980's, wall street thought it would take 30 years to build out a single cell phone system and at the end of 30% of ar spike americans would have cell phones, i got rich by starting ne depmbings tel. we have to move much more rapidly. ms. kelly: how do we do that? what's your role in making that happen? mr. warner: we have been -- we our been very specific with colleagues in the i.c. that they've got to speed up the requirements and procurement process. i've seen a real popular movement. ms. kelly: so you think we're head at the the right way? mr. warner: again, just taking overhead if you look at the transition on the commercial side in satellite, just the last
three years, and from, you know, e cost of the launch cost, there was one tenth the cost, now in many cases, one 50th the cost of what we're thinking. ms. kelly: we have a question here on potus. most presidents relied on the intelligence community. do you think president trump is drug on the intelligence community's insights to inform policy decisions? i'm going to add on a last question. do you think that's changed from a president who was just coming into office who had no experience working with an intelligence community, to one who has now been in office, has people in place in leadership of the intelligence community have you seen a change and a shift in his reliance on and confidence n the i.c.'s assessment? a face is worth a thousand
words. mr. warner: the combined knowledge, experience, and versus of the i.c. breitbart. i hope so. that is a w, listen, continuing worry, i think. ms. kelly: do you think as he learned -- mr. warner: listen. it's critical, i want the resident to succeed. most importantly for our country's sake. and he has to learn. but it's been a slower process than i had hoped. how is that for a p.c. answer? ms. kelly: i want everyone to get along. i just want to focus on issues that are going to impact all of us. but i agree it's frustrating
from the person outside of washington to look at what's going on and think, are we doing the best we can? mr. warner: but that is where, i think the i.c.'s role really goes up exponentially and more importantly, the notion is not just of the president, but for an average american consumer of information, the amount of information sources that overwhelm you. and you know, this goes, the normal question we get, what keeps uh up the most at night in terms of tra decisional threats? i wouldn't put those five. i would put the asymmetrical threat around cyber really bothers me more. i think adam raised this as well. it drives me crazy we have 21 states that were broken into and we still have a kafkaesque response we can't share with the top election officials because they don't have appropriate clearances. i'm going in in just one minute, we've got to, if you look at the fact that we've got 10 billion
devices that are connected to the internet at this point, we're going to 25 billion, we don't have any security built into most of those. each of those can be, if not weaponized, taken over. when we think about the notion of our technological advance makes us more technologically vulnerable. so sorting through how we get our information, americans deserve to have the knowledge of what is it at least the source of the information so they can make a judgment. i think we all have to use our tools more. and that again means for the i.c. both to the president and to the congress, their responsibility to kind of analyze, sort, and get this information to policymakers is more important than ever. ms. kelly: i know you have to go as well, so we have to wrap up, but i want to ask you one more question. when you look at the role of congress on all these issues we have talked about this morning, and their responsibility, give me an honest answer, what can congress do better? when you're looking in your own backyard, what can congress do
bet her mr. warner: i would argue, beyond just the i.c.? ms. kelly: yobbed the i.c. mr. warner: what i would say is, for at dinner last night john warner, when people were talking about then good old days of congress when people would get together. there are two things we can do. i think that committees and committee chairs need to take some of the power back and not have congress continually driven simply by the democratic or republican leadership, number one. and number two, i think in this day and age, we need to realize that most of the issues from our kind of economic challenges, i would argue, as somebody who was blessed to do well in business, fundamental challenge we have from an economic standpoint is, how do you make modern capitalism work for enough people? and we have to understand that most of the issues we are
arguing about are, frankly, 20th century issues. we're relitigating liberal versus conservative, left versus right, when more of the issue is future versus past. if we can reset that framework on that future versus past, i think there may be a whole way alignments.t of the vast majority of members of the senate get along at least privately agree on 80% of the issues. and we ought to produce a lot better product for the american people than we're producing at this point. ms. kelly: that's a great thought to end on. i thank you for your time. mr. warner: thank you for your service. ms. kelly: thank you for the excellent questions as well. nice to see you. thank you. >> congressman carlos curbelo represents florida's 26th
district, including miami and key west, which are preparing for hurricaner ma. he tweeted, thanks to colleagues who passed fema funding and flood insurance extension as southern florida prepares for hurricane irma. it's part of a package that raises money for harvey relief. another congressman retweeted governor rick scott's message, evacuations are not convenient, they're meant to keep you safe. sit fl511.com for evacuation routes. part of the white house briefing today focused on hurricane response and recovery. this is 0 minutes. ms. huckabee sanders: good afternoon. the president is constantly monitoring hurricane irma and th